00:00:00 --- log: started forth/12.06.19 00:12:02 --- quit: regnirps (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) 00:17:57 --- join: regnirps (~regnirpsM@184-157-254-206.dyn.centurytel.net) joined #forth 00:17:57 --- mode: ChanServ set +v regnirps 01:25:03 --- quit: fantazo (Remote host closed the connection) 01:37:27 --- join: DGASAU (~user@91.218.144.129) joined #forth 01:37:28 --- mode: ChanServ set +v DGASAU 02:06:34 --- join: Slant (~scott@180.151.32.194) joined #forth 02:06:34 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Slant 02:06:47 --- join: john_metcalf (~digital_w@87.115.178.251) joined #forth 02:06:48 --- mode: ChanServ set +v john_metcalf 02:07:09 What is a good resource to read about bootstrapping a Forth? 02:26:30 --- quit: ttmrichter (Quit: Leaving) 02:30:42 Slant: I found the Moving Forth articles helpful http://www.bradrodriguez.com/papers 02:30:54 john_metcalf: Thank you. 02:34:12 Oh, this is really good! 02:34:22 Extra thanks for the great resource. 02:34:59 Are you porting an existing Forth or writing your own? 02:40:08 Writing my own. 02:45:28 You might also find JonesForth useful https://github.com/chengchangwu/jonesforth/blob/master/jonesforth.S https://github.com/chengchangwu/jonesforth/blob/master/jonesforth.f 02:47:08 It's well commented and explains what's going on pretty well. It doesn't always keep to the standard though. 02:49:16 I'm not too fussed about the standard. 02:50:58 "The Forth Encyclopedia", "All About Forth" and "Threaded Interpretive Languages" are pretty good books if you can find them. 02:53:08 I have a Forth in progress here http://retroprogramming.com 03:03:55 Slant: and what's the point of "bootstrapping" yet another Forth? 03:04:12 DGASAU: … seriously? 03:04:13 (Especially if it is as broken as "jonesforth".) 03:05:20 For the pleasure of creating something. 03:06:25 DGASAU: Gosh. Why do something, disparaging a work, and using scare quotes. Having a bad day? 03:06:40 Do you really find pleasure in creating yet another rubbish implementation? 03:08:38 DGASAU: I *love* making rubbish. 03:12:38 --- join: ttmrichter (~ttmrichte@60.169.25.157) joined #forth 03:12:38 --- mode: ChanServ set +v ttmrichter 03:14:01 I'm also pretty happy with my "rubbish" implementation. 03:14:12 Implementing Forth is fundamentally different from implementing toy compiler for more realisting programming language. 03:14:34 The latter teaches you using powerful tools and concepts. 03:14:54 Implementing Forth teaches you only coding. 03:18:06 Cool. What are you implying? ;-) 03:20:13 --- quit: jillsmitt (Quit: Leaving) 04:04:46 --- join: SplinterOfChaos (~soc@cblmdm24-52-84-142.buckeyecom.net) joined #forth 04:04:46 --- mode: ChanServ set +v SplinterOfChaos 04:25:40 --- join: jillsmitt (~jillsmitt@46.227.184.141) joined #forth 04:25:40 --- mode: ChanServ set +v jillsmitt 04:27:34 --- join: phirsch_ (~phirsch@xdsl-89-0-107-213.netcologne.de) joined #forth 04:27:34 --- mode: ChanServ set +v phirsch_ 04:31:01 --- quit: phirsch (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) 04:31:01 --- nick: phirsch_ -> phirsch 05:54:29 --- quit: jillsmitt (Ping timeout: 240 seconds) 06:22:56 --- quit: Slant (Quit: Slant) 06:37:05 --- join: nighty^ (~nighty@static-68-179-124-161.ptr.terago.net) joined #forth 06:37:10 --- mode: ChanServ set +v nighty^ 06:57:25 --- join: Slant (~scott@180.151.32.194) joined #forth 06:57:25 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Slant 07:11:30 --- quit: Slant (Quit: Slant) 07:43:05 --- join: Monevii (~Monevii@adsl-207-204-147-103.prtc.net) joined #forth 07:43:06 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Monevii 07:43:12 --- join: Kumul (~Kumul@adsl-207-204-147-103.prtc.net) joined #forth 07:43:13 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Kumul 08:13:10 --- join: fantazo (~fantazo@91.119.137.254) joined #forth 08:13:10 --- mode: ChanServ set +v fantazo 08:38:18 --- quit: ttmrichter (Quit: Leaving) 08:58:22 --- join: entwislegrove (~Duncan_En@host86-135-158-162.range86-135.btcentralplus.com) joined #forth 08:58:22 --- mode: ChanServ set +v entwislegrove 09:14:23 --- quit: fantazo (Remote host closed the connection) 09:15:37 --- join: Onionnion (~ryan@adsl-68-254-168-131.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net) joined #forth 09:15:37 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Onionnion 09:24:07 --- quit: Onionnion (Quit: Leaving) 09:35:33 --- join: entwislegrove1 (~Duncan_En@host86-135-158-162.range86-135.btcentralplus.com) joined #forth 09:35:33 --- mode: ChanServ set +v entwislegrove1 09:38:06 --- quit: entwislegrove (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 09:44:33 --- quit: john_metcalf (Quit: john_metcalf) 10:09:40 --- join: Onionnion (~ryan@adsl-68-254-168-131.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net) joined #forth 10:09:48 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Onionnion 10:35:36 --- join: RodgerTheGreat (~RodgerThe@71-13-215-128.dhcp.mrqt.mi.charter.com) joined #forth 10:35:36 --- mode: ChanServ set +v RodgerTheGreat 10:54:04 --- join: jillsmitt (~jillsmitt@46.227.184.146) joined #forth 10:54:05 --- mode: ChanServ set +v jillsmitt 11:01:04 --- quit: Monevii (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 11:01:54 --- quit: Kumul (Ping timeout: 245 seconds) 12:11:05 --- quit: sav (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) 12:17:00 --- quit: entwislegrove1 (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 12:17:38 --- join: sav (~lsd@peirce.xored.org) joined #forth 12:17:39 --- mode: ChanServ set +v sav 12:20:23 --- part: jillsmitt left #forth 12:23:56 --- join: fantazo (~fantazo@91.119.137.254) joined #forth 12:23:57 --- mode: ChanServ set +v fantazo 12:26:19 There're several obvious implications. 12:26:40 If you don't see them... Well... 12:26:58 First, implementing Forth doesn't give you anything besides consuming your time, 12:27:07 note that when you implement Forth you don't program in Forth. 12:27:21 You program in C, assembly, or like that. 12:27:30 Perhaps with some small fraction of Forth. 12:27:56 Second, it doesn't give anything to the community as well. 12:28:12 You could just take any freely available Forth and improve it. 12:28:33 There's a whole range of those around, from public domain implementations 12:28:42 like pForth, 12:29:01 BSD licensed like FICL and FINA(?), 12:29:15 GPL licensed like SP-Forth and Gforth. 12:30:24 implementing Forth gives you something if there's no forth, or any compiler, on that platform yet :P 12:30:32 (which is specifically my case) 12:30:55 It takes much less time to adapt existing implementation. 12:31:10 Especially when you can correspond to authors or maintainers. 12:31:11 you just said implementing forth is mostly C or assembly 12:31:19 and yet it takes less time to adapt an existing implementation ? 12:31:26 Yes, exactly. 12:31:33 for an architecture with a completely novel assembly ? 12:31:49 Even that. 12:32:15 even if that were true, which i think is ridiculous, "less time" is not the only interesting criterion 12:32:51 The criterion you're talking of is your egoism. 12:32:57 And stupidity. 12:33:10 why yes, thank you for noticing ! 12:33:43 What you're talking about is solving solved problems again 12:33:50 with no benefit for the community. 12:34:10 how does one learn to program at all, if one does not reinvent wheels that have been invented many times ? 12:34:29 You don't learn programming _in_ Forth by _implementing_ Forth. 12:34:35 and your characterisation is myopic, because it denies the possibility that what i learn through the implementation increases my lever length 12:34:49 well I wasn't arguing that, although I did jump into a conversation / monologue 12:35:05 but I can still learn *something* of utility, and certainly I do. 12:35:17 You're increasing the number of code lines you have written. 12:35:38 That doesn't teach you anything, since most of Forth implementation code is boring. 12:35:52 Like copying blocks and searching whitespaces in strings. 12:36:06 that is a subjective normative judgment with which I am not compelled to agree. 12:36:30 the project is intrinsically interesting because I made the architecture. 12:36:47 How many Forth internals have you studied? 12:36:58 few. 12:37:10 camel80 12:37:12 mostly. 12:37:40 IIRC, it follows mostly FIG model and doesn't bring anything interesting. 12:38:14 who said I was looking for something interesting ? that's another subjective normative judgment, from someone who ostensibly is giving me the objective wisdom of years. 12:38:25 i'm looking for something that is straightforward and works. 12:38:25 That's not subjective judgement. 12:38:36 "interesting" is inherently subjective. 12:38:45 Not in this case. 12:39:08 define it, then. 12:39:21 The complexity of algorithms and solutions for code optimizations differ significantly between all those "CamelForth"s and, say, Gforth. 12:39:27 Or even SP-Forth. 12:39:56 then it sounds rather like Gforth would be exactly the inappropriate kind of forth to implement for a newbie on a new architecture. 12:40:07 optimisations generally get in the way of understanding. 12:40:52 Not at all. 12:41:09 is not gforth significantly greater in size than camel80 ? 12:41:18 You can have modular structure where you don't need to get 12:41:18 into algorithm details just to understand how the stuff works. 12:41:27 did you not earlier imply that my lines-of-code fallacy was leading me astray already ? 12:43:00 No. 12:44:23 good. 12:44:46 Alright, I have found CamelForth source. 12:45:06 Looks like rather archaic Forth-83 implementation. 12:45:32 and ? 12:46:17 About half of it is written in assembly, which proves that you're not learning Forth, if you're doing it that way. 12:46:49 first, you'll note I never implied I was learning forth by implementing it 12:46:52 It implements SLL wordlist, which proves that you don't learn anything beyond implementing _very_ primitive algorithms. 12:47:09 second, the other half IS written in forth, which proves you CAN learn forth by doing it that way. 12:47:27 It implements SLL wordlist, which proves that you don't learn anything beyond implementing _very_ primitive algorithms. 12:47:41 Notice words "very" and "primitive"? 12:47:42 the main point of writing this implementation is to have something quickly which provides higher-level functionality to a new architecture 12:47:54 not to implement some amazing new forth with new features and grandiose algorithms. 12:48:04 You can take _ready_ implementation and it gets you almost there. 12:48:26 Or even just there, like in this "Carrier IQ" case. 12:48:53 so you think that translating assembly line by line into a new format would make more sense than taking the time to write a forth oneself, then ? 12:50:31 If you have ever looked at DragonForth, you'll see how your work has been simplified by separating semantics. 12:50:37 (which is not even feasible considering the relative strangeness of the new assembly) 12:51:04 But of course, you and your fellows prefer not to invent anything new. 12:51:07 (well, it is feasible, but more than usually nonsensible) 12:51:16 i intend to invent something new in forth 12:51:29 i do not find it necessary or useful to invent something particularly new within my forth implementation 12:51:37 except insomuch as it is the first forth on its platform. 12:51:44 You cannot invent anything by wasting time on solving solved problems the same old way. 12:51:57 and ? 12:52:06 That's all. 12:52:12 invention is not the only source of learning. 12:52:40 or rather, inventing something for the first time is not the only source of learning 12:52:47 You're talking about learning how to build excavators by digging the soil diligently. 12:53:06 i never specified what it was i would be learning 12:53:14 clearly i will be learning something ; and i expect those somethings to be useful 12:53:26 but you are the one overspecifying what it is that you think i will not be learning. 12:54:04 RodgerTheGreat: i comprehended "for the first time" in 12:54:09 "invention" : is that wrong ? 12:54:11 With your current approach it is almost impossible to invent anything. 12:54:42 with your current approach it is almost impossible to enjoy anything. 12:54:49 kulp: what I meant was that you can invent something on your own even if someone else, sometime, has already figured it out 12:54:54 Oh, really? 12:54:55 RodgerTheGreat: oh, true enough. 12:54:59 Tell me more about it! 12:55:20 no thanks. 12:55:56 kulp: I don't think I caught what architecture you intend to target 12:56:17 Your enjoyment is getting the ditch dug out finally. 12:56:26 RodgerTheGreat: my own, called tenyr 12:56:38 cool 12:56:44 toy VMs are fun 12:57:05 VM ? that would be boring ;) i implemented it in an fpga 12:57:11 what sort of I/O will it have? That sort of defines what things you'll be able to do with it 12:57:14 ooh 12:57:48 (i wrote a simulator first, but as a VM along it would be pointless, because i've done that "invention" before) 12:57:50 anything like willow garage's J-1? 12:57:56 i don't know, i'll have to look that up 12:58:16 they take this neat approach where the instruction encoding essentially is microcode 12:58:21 hmm, nice 12:58:23 so you don't need a decode stage 12:58:30 80MHz ; mine runs at 14MHz right now :P 12:58:44 mine's only 250 lines of verilog though, for a 32-bit arch 12:58:47 so comparable in some aspects. 12:58:57 mine is register based. 12:59:31 it's really a very perverse architecture from any objective standpoint except that of rigorous orthogonality and regularity 12:59:55 J-1 was specifically designed for code density and to work well with the FPGAs they were using 13:00:07 mine is horrid with code density 13:00:15 so stack ops were natural 13:00:18 a conditional branch takes at least four 32-bit instructions :( 13:00:33 hrm 13:00:35 fortunately i am not trying to make it useful to anyone else 13:00:49 do you have some sort of end application in mind? 13:01:14 the original impetus was to write an OS that could run on my FPGA development board and connect to existing peripherals 13:01:22 basically, everything ASau hates : reinvent all the wheels. 13:01:40 as a project, it's practically unbounded in scope, so it could last my lifetime. 13:01:40 Yeah, all you have learnt is using Verilog. 13:02:03 that's both laughably incorrect, and not at all insulting. 13:02:25 "all you did is muck about in the water and have a good time" 13:03:11 my "decode stage" is just separating bitfields from the one instruction format, though 13:03:23 so it might be similar to J-1 in some ways. eventually i want to build a pipelined implementation at least 13:03:30 and perhaps even an out-of-order one, if i go truly insane. 13:03:49 (and ASau will be pierced to the core as i reinvent another 1960's technology) 13:03:52 out of order execution is such a pain in the ass 13:03:57 exactly :D 13:04:12 it infects everything 13:04:37 you have to build oodles of forwarding paths and ways to insert stalls and squash instructions and things 13:04:58 it certainly won't be pretty ; and it probably goes quite against the orthogonality and regularity principles 13:05:11 who knows if it will ever happen ; but if it does i think i will definitely learn something 13:06:30 anyway before the OoO core i will want to have a forth implementation (about a third done) and ideally a C compiler (maybe just an LLVM backend) 13:06:31 * ASau wonders why TTA is non-orthogonal. 13:07:12 well you'll have better luck with an LLVM backend by being register-based than you would with a stack machine 13:07:29 true enough 13:07:35 LLVM is considerably less general than advertised 13:07:52 it's basically designed for compiling C to register machines, and that's about it 13:07:57 It covers all the most important architectures. 13:07:59 i have a C compiler project too (stalled for some time), which probably makes baby ASau cry with its terrible lack of originality, but it's too complex for my puny brain 13:08:13 so LLVM seems like a good stop-gap, at least 13:08:17 sure 13:08:26 kulp: You assume that this is the first time I meet human stupidity. 13:08:37 better to work with than GCC anyway 13:08:47 If you really do, then you must be extremely stupid. 13:08:59 why would i assume such a silly thing ? 13:09:25 i only assume that you care too much when people do things you perceive as inanely unproductive. 13:09:31 ASau: I'm sure you look in the mirror every day 13:10:00 RodgerTheGreat: then you don't know people at all. 13:10:23 ASau reminds me of a wordier Zhivago 13:10:26 perhaps they are twins 13:10:35 it would be poetic in its symmetry 13:26:07 --- join: john_metcalf (~digital_w@87.115.178.251) joined #forth 13:26:07 --- mode: ChanServ set +v john_metcalf 13:44:49 --- quit: nighty^ (Quit: Disappears in a puff of smoke) 13:47:47 ASau: to write some primitives, yes you need to program in assembly at some point. However, I would say the majority of a Forth engine is programmed in Forth 13:48:21 and there is also the experience to be gained from knowing how to make one's own Forth implementation 13:51:23 The main point is that this implementation experience is mostly irrelevant. 13:52:08 It is true that in _some_ implementations the most of the code is in Forth. 13:52:50 It is true that in _some_ implementations there are non-trivial algorithms and technics used. 13:53:29 But those implementations are _not_ one person effort. 13:53:43 --- quit: Onionnion (Quit: Leaving) 13:53:55 Their development involved multiple persons with different backgrounds. 13:55:13 All those one-man fast-and-simple implementations sit on the opposite end. 13:55:29 The Forth part in them is very primitive. 13:55:47 It doesn't go beyond simplistic algorithms and data structures, 13:56:13 even sacrificing efficiency, modularity, and code orthogonality. 13:56:49 --- join: Onionnion (~ryan@adsl-68-254-168-131.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net) joined #forth 13:56:49 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Onionnion 14:04:12 that's quite a collection of unfounded absolute statements. 14:05:08 How many implementations have you studied? 14:07:34 You all like to call anything you don't understand "unfounded" and/or "subjective." 14:11:02 --- quit: Onionnion (Remote host closed the connection) 14:53:54 Does it really matter if the implementor is happy with what they've achieved? 15:15:19 --- join: nighty^ (~nighty@69-165-220-105.dsl.teksavvy.com) joined #forth 15:15:19 --- mode: ChanServ set +v nighty^ 15:23:38 When you finish digging the ditch, you feel happiness too. 15:24:32 But if you find that digging ditch teaches you mechanics, you're wrong. 15:44:05 --- join: Onionnion (~ryan@adsl-68-254-168-131.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net) joined #forth 15:44:05 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Onionnion 16:01:19 --- quit: Onionnion (Quit: Leaving) 16:11:53 I'll rephrase that... in *good* implementations, most of the code is Forth, not assembler/C/whatever. 16:12:54 I don't get the point of writing most of a Forth implementation in C or assembler 16:13:09 yes, you have to code some 30 words as assembler to get the ball rolling 16:13:17 (or C or whatever) 16:13:47 unless of course you are coding on a chip designed to run Forth from the beginning 16:16:56 What implementation do you call "good"? 16:17:58 All your words are purely theoretical. 16:18:06 There's no substance behind them. 16:18:39 There's no publicly accessible implementation of reasonable quality 16:18:45 that is implemented mostly in Forth. 16:19:30 Top free implementations are almost only C, C with mixture of m4 and Forth, 16:20:06 mixture of assembly, purely binary code, and Forth. 16:20:53 eForth 16:21:12 That's pure assembly. 16:21:18 Just like FIG Forth. 16:21:24 Also, it isn't of reasonable quality. 16:21:30 eForth has a minimal kernel written in assembly and everything else is written in Forth 16:21:36 that's the whole point of eForth 16:23:10 --- join: Onionnion (~ryan@adsl-68-254-168-131.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net) joined #forth 16:23:11 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Onionnion 16:23:26 Yes, it is archaic system from the era when only barebone systems were valued. 16:23:34 The world has proved that approach wrong. 16:24:04 so next you're going to tell us that the only way for a system to be of "reasonable quality" if it can make you a sandwich 16:24:47 Sure. 16:25:08 That's part of quality. 16:25:53 If the system is such that it has only one casual user, 16:25:53 which is its own creator, it hard to call it "high quality." 16:26:36 At the best, it has no quality at all since there's nothing to compare it to. 16:26:48 you're a fucking idiot. You argue in circles and play with semantics constantly, and it it patently obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. 16:27:53 Right, you're the only smart person here. 16:28:26 If you're so smart, why are you bring obsolete systems as an argument? 16:29:05 it's only "obsolete" by your completely arbitrary definition of "obsolete" 16:29:12 Even your recent commercial "success" is about C-written system (pForth). 16:29:55 You belong to the very narrow minority of people who insist that 16-bit-only system is not obsolete. 16:30:46 Try arguing it in wider audience. 16:54:03 --- join: Monevii (~Monevii@adsl-207-204-147-103.prtc.net) joined #forth 16:54:03 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Monevii 16:54:25 --- join: Kumul (~Kumul@adsl-207-204-147-103.prtc.net) joined #forth 16:54:25 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Kumul 16:55:08 --- join: phirsch_ (~phirsch@xdsl-89-0-165-146.netcologne.de) joined #forth 16:55:08 --- mode: ChanServ set +v phirsch_ 16:55:46 --- quit: phirsch (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) 16:55:46 --- nick: phirsch_ -> phirsch 17:04:03 Kumul, o/ 17:04:41 so a lot of people come by asking questions about tiny compilers for hardware they're working on. what such hardware would this include? I'm interested in trying out this homemade stuff 17:28:43 --- quit: Onionnion (Quit: Leaving) 17:29:43 --- join: Onionnion (~ryan@adsl-68-254-168-131.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net) joined #forth 17:29:43 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Onionnion 18:07:31 what actually happened to falvo? once he had his blog online, now everything is gone. like someone flushed him down the toilet?! 18:10:49 --- quit: SplinterOfChaos (Quit: Ex-Chat) 18:52:50 --- quit: nighty^ (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 19:05:39 --- join: Slant (~scott@119.82.127.90) joined #forth 19:05:39 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Slant 19:08:16 ASau: there are plenty of applications where a 16-bit microcontroller is all that is necessary. vending machines, for example 19:09:26 prices in cents, doubles (or maybe triples) for total sales... I mean, when is the last time you've seen a vending machine sell an item for more than $20 let alone $327.67? 19:16:55 i worked on an enormous supercomputing project for … a powerful entity … in which the processors used for monitoring power and temperature and other real-time environmentals were HCS08 19:17:01 which is almost an 8-bit system :P 19:18:00 yeah and that's really all you need 19:18:16 you let a desktop PC with the 64-bit processor analyze the data, but for just recording it 16 bits is plenty 19:18:43 --- quit: Slant (Quit: Slant) 19:18:52 right, and for reacting to it real-time ; most of the horsepower was on a 32-bit PPC, but the real-time stuff and the "make the system alive" stuff was in the micro 19:19:07 in data recorders you generally want low power, and lots of low-power chips made today are 8- or 16-bit 19:19:13 we thought we were lucky when they gave us the 4k RAM version instead of the 2K ram ! 19:19:30 (i don't know why i switched capitalisations there) 19:20:41 and when did Quartus quit coming around? 19:21:12 hell, most audio is 16-bit 19:21:24 was that fellow associated with the PalmOS Forth environment? 19:21:54 oh heh, i got confused because i'm in ##fpga too 19:21:59 and Quartus means something there 19:22:31 (i'm sure you're all very interested in the various species of my confusion) 19:23:03 oh undoubtedly 19:32:56 --- join: I440r (~zhiming@193.sub-166-249-129.myvzw.com) joined #forth 19:32:56 --- mode: ChanServ set +o I440r 20:43:03 --- quit: RodgerTheGreat (Quit: RodgerTheGreat) 21:23:24 --- quit: I440r (Quit: brb) 21:27:09 --- quit: Onionnion (Quit: Leaving) 22:16:00 --- quit: john_metcalf (Quit: http://retroprogramming.com) 22:22:29 --- quit: Kumul (Quit: gone) 22:23:04 --- join: Kumul (~Kumul@adsl-207-204-147-103.prtc.net) joined #forth 22:23:05 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Kumul 22:23:11 --- join: Slant (~scott@180.151.32.194) joined #forth 22:23:11 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Slant 22:30:13 --- join: I440r (~zhiming@193.sub-166-249-129.myvzw.com) joined #forth 22:30:13 --- mode: ChanServ set +o I440r 22:32:40 --- quit: Slant (Quit: Slant) 22:36:11 --- join: Slant (~scott@180.151.32.194) joined #forth 22:36:11 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Slant 22:41:43 --- quit: Slant (Quit: Slant) 23:03:21 --- quit: Monevii (Read error: Connection reset by peer) 23:06:58 --- quit: Kumul (Quit: gone) 23:28:17 --- join: john_metcalf (~digital_w@87.115.178.251) joined #forth 23:28:18 --- mode: ChanServ set +v john_metcalf 23:35:11 --- join: Slant (~scott@180.151.32.194) joined #forth 23:35:11 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Slant 23:48:19 --- join: Slant_ (~scott@98.158.123.33) joined #forth 23:48:19 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Slant_ 23:49:15 --- quit: Slant (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) 23:49:15 --- nick: Slant_ -> Slant 23:55:15 --- quit: Slant (Quit: Slant) 23:58:49 --- join: Slant (~scott@98.158.123.33) joined #forth 23:58:49 --- mode: ChanServ set +v Slant 23:59:59 --- log: ended forth/12.06.19